The worst designed myth in history

[Starboard Tack]

Critics of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Christ's life assert that the stories of miracles and physical resurrection must be myths since miracles don't happen and "flying corpses" don't come back to life. Atheists and liberal Christians find common ground in arguing that since these things don't happen, and since there were no eyewitness accounts of the events described, the Gospels themselves must have been written long after the events purportedly described. From the perspective of the atheist, the motivation for the authoring of these accounts has been asserted to be to build a new religion, with core historical details modified by later writers in such a way so as to promote the new religious philosophy.

For the purposes of debate, let's grant that this analysis of liberals and atheists is correct - what is described in the Gospels did not happen in the way they are presented, and per Paul's assertion, Christianity is falsified.

If these stories are fabrications and made up by later writers, the question for debate is whether these fabricators were the stupidest myth creators in history, or geniuses in coming up with an account so improbable in 1st century Jerusalem that it would be viewed as having to be true by later gullible and unsophisticated worshipers, since no one could ever just make up such an improbable story. If one were inventing a religion out of the cloth of Judaism, is it stupidity or Machiavellian sophistication that would be the rationale for including these core elements in the myth, which would be bizarre or offensive to Jews:

1. A Messiah physically born of a virgin.
2. A Messiah born into the lowest rung of Jewish society.
3. A Messiah who was completely passive in dealing with the oppressors of Jews.
4. A Messiah who consorted with criminals, prostitutes and other condemned or unclean people.
5. A Messiah who pollutes his followers with rituals involving blood and symbolic cannibalism.
6. A Messiah who doesn't help the Jews one iota during his life.
7. A Messiah who dies.
8. A Messiah who dies under the condemnation of God by being crucified.
9. A Messiah who is individually resurrected, when Jews had no concept of resurrection except in the context of a general resurrection at the end of times.
10. A Messiah whose act of resurrection is unwitnessed.
11. A Messiah whose resurrection is first noted by women withnesses, who can't testify to anything in Jewish society.
12. A Messiah who ministers to Gentiles.

Having granted that the Gospels are fabricated or simply metaphor, I'm inclined to think the fabricators were Machiavellian since they sure seem to have sucked in a lot of people awfully quickly, but am open to the argument that they were simply insensitive to what a poorly constructed myth they had created.

[Autodidact]

I find it usually works better to let other people state their position, and then discuss it. If you want to know what my position as an atheist is, just ask me. It's not this.

[Autodidact]

You're quite right though, the concept of Yeshua as the Messiah is both bizarre and offensive to Jews. That's why Jews exist; we don't accept your Yeshua as the Messiah, since he clearly isn't.

What's your point?

[Artie]

Critics of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Christ's life assert that the stories of miracles and physical resurrection must be myths since miracles don't happen and "flying corpses" don't come back to life.

Sorry if this is not relevant to the original post but Saint Justin Martyr said: "And when we say also that the Word, who is the ..... first-born. of God, was
produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."

If the Christians "propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter" how would we know which stories are true and which stories are myths? Since he says the stories are alike are they all true? http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xxi.html

[David 2.0]

I wasn't a fan of the bell bottom, yet for a period of time they were the rave.


Which is to say, I'm not sure if there is a strong relationship between how an idea is designed and its popularity.

People are strange.

[Flail]

Critics of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Christ's life assert that the stories of miracles and physical resurrection must be myths since miracles don't happen and "flying corpses" don't come back to life. Atheists and liberal Christians find common ground in arguing that since these things don't happen, and since there were no eyewitness accounts of the events described, the Gospels themselves must have been written long after the events purportedly described. From the perspective of the atheist, the motivation for the authoring of these accounts has been asserted to be to build a new religion, with core historical details modified by later writers in such a way so as to promote the new religious philosophy.

For the purposes of debate, let's grant that this analysis of liberals and atheists is correct - what is described in the Gospels did not happen in the way they are presented, and per Paul's assertion, Christianity is falsified.

If these stories are fabrications and made up by later writers, the question for debate is whether these fabricators were the stupidest myth creators in history, or geniuses in coming up with an account so improbable in 1st century Jerusalem that it would be viewed as having to be true by later gullible and unsophisticated worshipers, since no one could ever just make up such an improbable story. If one were inventing a religion out of the cloth of Judaism, is it stupidity or Machiavellian sophistication that would be the rationale for including these core elements in the myth, which would be bizarre or offensive to Jews:

1. A Messiah physically born of a virgin.
2. A Messiah born into the lowest rung of Jewish society.
3. A Messiah who was completely passive in dealing with the oppressors of Jews.
4. A Messiah who consorted with criminals, prostitutes and other condemned or unclean people.
5. A Messiah who pollutes his followers with rituals involving blood and symbolic cannibalism.
6. A Messiah who doesn't help the Jews one iota during his life.
7. A Messiah who dies.
8. A Messiah who dies under the condemnation of God by being crucified.
9. A Messiah who is individually resurrected, when Jews had no concept of resurrection except in the context of a general resurrection at the end of times.
10. A Messiah whose act of resurrection is unwitnessed.
11. A Messiah whose resurrection is first noted by women withnesses, who can't testify to anything in Jewish society.
12. A Messiah who ministers to Gentiles.

Having granted that the Gospels are fabricated or simply metaphor, I'm inclined to think the fabricators were Machiavellian since they sure seem to have sucked in a lot of people awfully quickly, but am open to the argument that they were simply insensitive to what a poorly constructed myth they had created.

Yours seems to be a pre-spun strawman 'Christian indoctrinated' view of Jesus as a 'Messiah' in this OP; I don't view Jesus this way at all, and as myth, parable and allegory, His teachings set a wonderful example for us to follow; notwithstanding the fact that much of Christianity misses the point or tries to read too much into a very simple approach to life and living for others.

[Starboard Tack]

Critics of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Christ's life assert that the stories of miracles and physical resurrection must be myths since miracles don't happen and "flying corpses" don't come back to life. Atheists and liberal Christians find common ground in arguing that since these things don't happen, and since there were no eyewitness accounts of the events described, the Gospels themselves must have been written long after the events purportedly described. From the perspective of the atheist, the motivation for the authoring of these accounts has been asserted to be to build a new religion, with core historical details modified by later writers in such a way so as to promote the new religious philosophy.

For the purposes of debate, let's grant that this analysis of liberals and atheists is correct - what is described in the Gospels did not happen in the way they are presented, and per Paul's assertion, Christianity is falsified.

If these stories are fabrications and made up by later writers, the question for debate is whether these fabricators were the stupidest myth creators in history, or geniuses in coming up with an account so improbable in 1st century Jerusalem that it would be viewed as having to be true by later gullible and unsophisticated worshipers, since no one could ever just make up such an improbable story. If one were inventing a religion out of the cloth of Judaism, is it stupidity or Machiavellian sophistication that would be the rationale for including these core elements in the myth, which would be bizarre or offensive to Jews:

1. A Messiah physically born of a virgin.
2. A Messiah born into the lowest rung of Jewish society.
3. A Messiah who was completely passive in dealing with the oppressors of Jews.
4. A Messiah who consorted with criminals, prostitutes and other condemned or unclean people.
5. A Messiah who pollutes his followers with rituals involving blood and symbolic cannibalism.
6. A Messiah who doesn't help the Jews one iota during his life.
7. A Messiah who dies.
8. A Messiah who dies under the condemnation of God by being crucified.
9. A Messiah who is individually resurrected, when Jews had no concept of resurrection except in the context of a general resurrection at the end of times.
10. A Messiah whose act of resurrection is unwitnessed.
11. A Messiah whose resurrection is first noted by women withnesses, who can't testify to anything in Jewish society.
12. A Messiah who ministers to Gentiles.

Having granted that the Gospels are fabricated or simply metaphor, I'm inclined to think the fabricators were Machiavellian since they sure seem to have sucked in a lot of people awfully quickly, but am open to the argument that they were simply insensitive to what a poorly constructed myth they had created.

Yours seems to be a pre-spun strawman 'Christian indoctrinated' view of Jesus as a 'Messiah' in this OP; I don't view Jesus this way at all, and as myth, parable and allegory, His teachings set a wonderful example for us to follow; notwithstanding the fact that much of Christianity misses the point or tries to read too much into a very simple approach to life and living for others.

If a strawman, which of the myth elements do you think are not part of the myth? Certainly myths can be wonderfully instructive, but this one, at least according to many, was constructed to create a religion. So the question remains. If that was its purpose, why choose such outlandish details to hang the myth on? As long as you're making it up, why not make it compelling to the audience? And if the myth has some other purpose than creating a religion, what is that purpose?

I don't have an answer given granting the premise that this is all a myth. That's why I am seeking an explanation, which atheists and liberal Christians must have, or why would they call the Gospel accounts myth and metaphor?

[d.thomas]

Starboard Tack, as long as you believe the intent of the author was to start a religion, what difference does it make? I have no idea what the intent of the author was. What difference does it make whether Jesus was historical or mythical and why would anyone want to argue the matter? Christianity is what it is, so what is your point?

[Starboard Tack]

Starboard Tack, as long as you believe the intent of the author was to start a religion, what difference does it make? I have no idea what the intent of the author was. What difference does it make whether Jesus was historical or mythical and why would anyone want to argue the matter? Christianity is what it is, so what is your point?

The point is to explain why, if the intent of the authors was to start a religion, they chose such outrageous claims to make, which would seem to be the least likely elements to adopt if you wanted to convince Jews that the Messiah had come. It obviously worked, which is why if you grant the premise that the Gospels are all hat and no cowboy, the authors must have been almost prescient in selecting the myth elements they chose since it worked so well.

If it were me, and I wanted to make up a bunch of stuff about something that didn't happen, I'd have chosen more realistic myth elements, for example, a story about Jesus disarming with a karate kick a Roman Centurion who was picking on the Syro- Phoenician woman, or maybe establishing a ritual sharpening of the knives in his memory rather than drinking his blood and eating his flesh, which would be the epitome of unclean in Jewish eyes.

What's puzzling about the Jesus myth is that it was so successful, yet so fanciful. Simon bar-Kokhba was another Messianic claimant who actually kicked some Roman ass. However, when he died, his followers didn't make up stories about a resurrection like Jesus' followers did, they just shrugged their shoulders and said, well, "he's dead, must not have been the Messiah."

And Appollonius of Tyana had his "gospel" written a couple of hundred years after his death which claimed he did miracles, yet for some reason, he attracted no followers.

The only thing I can think of if you believe the Jesus Gospels are myth is that it was the very outlandishness of the claims that convinced people somehow, but that's the reason for asking the question. Why pick these myths and why did they work?

[Starboard Tack]

Critics of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Christ's life assert that the stories of miracles and physical resurrection must be myths since miracles don't happen and "flying corpses" don't come back to life.

Sorry if this is not relevant to the original post but Saint Justin Martyr said: "And when we say also that the Word, who is the ..... first-born. of God, was
produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."

If the Christians "propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter" how would we know which stories are true and which stories are myths? Since he says the stories are alike are they all true? http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xxi.html

Thanks for the reference. In reading it, it appears that JM is arguing that there is nothing more fanciful about the virgin birth than there is the idea that Jupiter has sons. That argument wouldn't work so well if you don't believe in Jupiter either, but I think he was simply saying that the Christian belief in the virgin birth could not be rejected as improbable by people who believed in Jupiter and his various offspring by divine means.

As it relates to the Jesus myth, the Jews certainly didn't believe in the pagan gods, so the virgin birth to them would seem as absurd as it does to non-theists today. Which again makes for an odd element of the overall myth. Why not just have Jesus appear, fully grown and ready to change the world? Why give him brothers and sisters (and all that implies), yet insist that the spirit of God was responsible for the pregnancy? This just seems so ridiculous that it would disqualify anyone propounding it as sane. So my question remains, why pick these silly elements when you're making it up, since more sensible elements wouldn't expose you to ridicule and be an instant turn off to those you were proselytizing? Again, seems like they had to be morons or the smartest people ever.